Scottie-GNZ

If he retained the 3.90, he would be cruising 65mph @ 1750RPMs! My engine is 3.8L with gobs more low-low-end torque than the RB. Even though we would be running radically different gearing and tire sizes, the MPH/1000RPMs are almost identical. I cruise 70mph @ 1900+ and anything less and I am lugging the engine. For me that is no problem because the slightest pedal pressure at that speed kicks it out of 4th-gear lockup. I personally agrre with Mike and think the RB, with its smaller displacement and hotter cams, would not like cruising at 1750. That means lots of shifting while cruising or leaving it in 5th

I sure hope you can trust them. I have a friend who manages one of the large CV repair franchises and he advised that I was better off taking a chance with used OEMs because the rebuilds did not use quality metal for the cages. They are certainly good for a normal driving replacements but would definitely not hold up to racing.

Regarding Mike questioning the need for a 6-spd, I have asked the very same question before. I see lots of mention about big gears, etc, etc and no one seems to make mention that this is going behind a turbo engine, where the typical NA mindset does not apply. Cruising down the hwy off boost, the RB26 will be like any small turbo engine, a no-torque, weak engine making the .50 6th gear totally useless. As Mike said, except for the torque capacity, WOW factor or thinking a 6-spd makes your setup more exotic, it is not needed nor worth it.

I believe you are referring to 1FastZ (or something like that). Lets be careful here and not give anyone the impression that the R-200 is fine for a 9-sec car. He openly admitted he did not launch the car hard and if I recall his 60' times were in the 1.60s. I recall him saying he rolled the car a couple of feet then got into it, akin to slipping the clutch slightly on a manual.

Scuba, you are doing just fine. Make the upgrade to the CVs and DO NOT change anything else, especially anything to eliminate the squat. Trust me on this. BTW, what tranny are you running?

Thanks. The fenders are used stockers that replaced my originals with the broken flare. The hood is also used that I got in a trade from a buddy. It needed work but turned out OK.

I do not believe I ever made such a statement. I did say the CV was a "weak point" but I also clarified what I meant by that statement. It takes tremendous HP and traction to cut a 1.60' or better and the load on the CVs can be compounded by incorrect suspension setup, like road racing springs, etc and the fact that we are for the most part using 20+ yr old used CVs. I went as quick as 1.55 with 275/50-15 BFG DRs and launching with a t-brake. I broke a driver's side CV and after checking with a CV shop, I was told that must have been a freak accident because the pass side is what usually breaks. Bottom line is, as long as we are using 20+ yr old parts from the junkyard, it is a crapshoot but definitely better than u-joints. I stressed that point in my webpage and more than once on this forum. I also made it very clear (apparently not clear enough) that the reason why I switched was not only because of the R-200. I wanted to launch much harder but was not willing to pay $500-700 for custom CVs. I am now running DOT-slicks and have gone as quick as 1.45. Would I have broken another used CV? I did not want to risk it. In addition, as nuts as this might sound, it cost me (I stress ME) less to do the C4 swap than it would have have cost me to get the R-200 to do what I wanted.

Reason why I am so interested in the SupraTT and 3rd-gen RX-7 is that those cars were competing in the NHRA Sprots Compact Street-Tire class last year with the quickest Supra going 9.0! This year they are allowed to run "DOT-legal" tires, meaning ET Streets and QTP and I fully expect them to get down in the 8.70 range. It would be ironic if their suspensions contradicted the current rule, considering the Supras must have a minimum weight of 2,900#.

If someone has an NHRA rulebook, please look this up and put this "debate" to rest. Every reference I have seen regarding NHRA rules and Corvette IRS, none makes any specific references to the C4 or C5. MOF, here is the specific NHRA verbage that went along with the modification of this rule: E.T. Brackets A long-standing rule that requires any car with independent rear suspension (IRS), weighing over 2000 pounds, and running 10.99 or quicker to replace the IRS with a conventional rear-end housing has been modified. For 1999, only those IRS designs which utilize a lower control arm only (like a 1963 to 1982 Corvette) will have to comply with the above requirement. If the suspension utilizes both upper and lower control arms, the IRS may be retained regardless of weight or e.t. Of course, NHRA left it wide open for debate. Why spell out 1963 to 1982? If the C4 is illegal, why not spell it out clearer and say "1963 to 1996 Corvette" to include the C4? To make it even more confusing, the IDRC (oldest import racing sanctioning group) states the following: All RWD vehicles equipped with an independent rear suspension (IRS) from the factory must have and keep the upper and lower control arms. Any vehicles quicker than 10.99-seconds equipped with IRS without upper and lower control arms may replace live unit to a conventional straight axle unit. Once again, wide open for debate and note the "may". Does anyone know if SupraTTs and 3rd-gen RX-7 have rear upper control arms?

Pete, absolutely agree with your response to that statement. You do not need that headache. Not sure what was meant by not wanting to "butcher" up the bottom of the car, but unless unless you come up with some design like Pete's, it is unavoidable. The generic Summit hoop works fine and since it is generic you will have to do a little trimming her and there. Drill holes in the floor and use a plate inside for rigidity. Once you get to the point where you need a driveshaft loop, it gets tough to keep the car virgin.

Too many folks, unknowingly, underestimate the strength of the R200 setup. The main problems with the R200 is the lack of availabiity of a LSD and the u-joints in the halfshafts. The CV conversion addresses the axle problem and money or luck addresses the LSD. Grumpy, thanks for considering my setup a worthy option although it is not one I recommend for the mechanically or greenback-challenged. Only reason why I am not running a modded R200 or better yet, a R230 is the sheer cost to satisfy my needs: LSD, 3.0:1 R&P and custom axles. $400-500 for a used LSD, big $$$ for a NISMO 3.06 R&P, couple of hundred to swap it with new bearings and $500-$700 for custom HD CVs. I ended up going with custom-made 3" steel axles and the pair cost the same or less than what 1 custom CV would have cost me. Ironically I am running a DANA36 which has a 8" ring gear, same as the R200!! Now, having heaped praise on the virtus of the R200, I would say if someone is starting from scratch with a really strong motor for drag racing with sticky tires, then would probably need a R200, LSD, different gearing, CV adaptor with companion flange, CVs, shocks and springs. Cost that out and you will see (especially if everything has to be farmed out) it is worth looking at alternatives.

Either that statement was meant as a joke or you are not getting the message of what Z-Gad's car is capable of.

The only way to make such a test meaningful is under full boost measuring the temp at the compressor outlet and at the TB. The closer the TB temp is to ambient the better. You also want to measure boost at the compressor outlet and at the manifold to see the pressure drop between the 2 points. Keep in mind that the plumbing will also affect pressure drop.

Certainly does not surprise me. The performance spec for that car is as follows: 0-60 3.9, 0-100 8.9, 1/4-mile 11.9. That IMO should make you about dead even but consider he probably left it in 6th underestimating you...... I would still kill for one though but the dealer does want to trade heads-up for my 84 Carerra See you tomorrow night?

Keep Looking!

Question is, will someone buy this? http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2406244107&category=33742

AHA! Valuable piece of information. Thanks, Don,

Simply AWESOME! Lets see. I-40 to 78 to 280 to 96. Thats not a bad ride.

What is it from? Sounds like it should handle 350hp. The 100-shot does not matter as it happens after the I/C. Make sure you understand how it needs to be plumbed before committing. Sometimes the plumbing (if done right) can cost almost as much as the I/C.

Other than an electrical connection (for what purpose?) I cannot imagine it does anything but split the line for the front from the m/c into L & R. If you eliminate it you still need to split the front line with a TADAAA, distribution block. If you think it is blocked, take it apart and clear it out.

Yes, Hoosier QTPs are what I am using now and a 8" wheel is perfect.

Anyone looking to go beyond DRs but stay "LEGAL", this is an absolutely awesome tire!! I am running 26x9.5x16 on an 8" rim. Best of all, I am not using a tube and they do not ever lose even 1lb of pressure. I plan to step up to 26x11.5x16 next time as I have blown these away a couple of times trying to put the car on its bumper but that is the extreme and the above size would work for any hard running Z-car. Be aware that this will really challenge your diff setup. I would say halfshafts need not apply.

Personally, I think you are going about this the wrong way. You did not state your HP or performance goal or what size injs you are dealing with, but bear with me for a while. Lets assume we are dealing with stock injs that flow 260cc. I use a formula that determines the amount of HP a set of injs can support at a conservative 80% DC. HP at 80% DC = (inj cc / 7) * # of cyls So 6 stock injs can support 222hp. Assuming the 2 extra injs will flow 100% (and they wont) then 8 injs can support 297hp. Now 6 SVO injs, rated a 378cc (36lbs) with the same formula can support 324hp, so why introduce the complexity of extra injs that cannot be properly controlled w/o an expensive EIC and still you are not gauranteed the proper flow pattern and fuel distribution.

I believe it can be done but the key is wheel width and offset. The closest equivalent being used on several stock-fendered Zs is the 235/60-15 BFG DR which is about .2" taller. As for the 60', power plays a large part in the equation, so it depends on how much power you have, and the suspension's ability to maintain the full contact patch under load off the line.

My car is a '71 with a 15/16" dual-reservoir m/c. The original front brake line that went from the m/c to the distribution block directly below it now goes into the line-loc and the outlet of the line-loc goes into the distribution block. The line-loc has nothig to do with the rear brakes (in case anyone does not know). I have a Wilwood prop valve in the pass-side storage box and the original prop-valve has been removed.